Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't believe that the climate change (cooler here in summer and spring than 10 years ago) is man caused. If it is not caused by us what do we do to stop or change it? The sun has been letting us down with so little activity on it.
I say that we can't change what the climate is doing by taxing the hell out of American businesses which brings the resultant raise in prices for the people so why even talk about Crap and Tax? All of that fool thing is aimed to help those who, like Algore, have bought those non-existent points he means to sell to various businesses.
I really think that the Jackson woman at EPA and those who support her crap about carbon dioxide should look at what plants need to exist and produce oxygen for us. Why don't the go to population centers and tax people for breathing since that produces so much carbon dioxide.
You say do something so I must ask you what you think will work. Do you really think that taxing our people to get money to give to backward nations for their leaders to pocket will do any good?
You know, there is something else that some businesses are not discussing either.....destruction of trees. Along with the scaling back of alot of the emmissions put out by cars and some companies why not plant more trees/plants which by chance emit oxygen. I always wondered why do we need so much wood anyway? I know that there are other biodegradeable products that can be used instead. As far as money is concerned giving other countries compensation for not polluting the air is odd at the least but can be profitable if there is a proper incentive to do so
That's the motivation. We hate that you freaks are trying to push new legislation that will both increase taxes tremendously and decrease our way of life based on nothing but a B-level documentary by a politician and loose science.
You hate science, and you hate ugly realities. So you prefer to bury your heads in the sand and listen to rightwing propaganda instead. Whether its non existent WMD or climate change, you people can be played like a fiddle. It keeps repeating itself year after year, its not hard to see a pattern here.
They cannot. That is exactly why the scientists had to alter their data to support their hypothesis.
"Climate Change" appeals to narcissists everywhere. Appeal to a man's vanity long enough and you can bilk him out of Trillions of dollars. Newsflash! In the scheme of the universe for those who think they are so powerful as to directly affect and have the ability to re-direct the global climate: man is less significant than the puss pocket on the pimple on the backside of a parasite on a sand flea. Get over yourselves and step away from the mirror. You probably think this song is about you.
Who was emitting all the Co2 about the time the last ice-age ended and Greenland became green? Newsflash: it wasn't man.
Epic fail is ignoring mans contribution to climate change and pretending we cannot influence it.
Mega fail.
Major Mega Epic Fail are the talking heads that will only rely on what they are told by others, often times not being able to tell the difference between agenda and facts.
If you think you can change something, the by golly gumbo, get after it. But as long as man is arrogant enough to imagine that he can make a difference in the grander scheme of things on this planet, climate change, in the context of being a problem for the earth, will always be a nonstarter.
To put it in simpler terms: If you had truly studied this issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Wow, folks you both have interesting points but the only thing that is constant is that there IS a change in the worlds climate. The disagreement is mainly what to do about it and the actual cause. Lets agree on one thing if nothing is done about there will be another ice age....bye bye man (in it's present form). If something is done about it ...what are you going to do? Since I'm in my forties and the next major change in the climate could be 100-200 years down the way, and to top it all off there are greedy leaders all over the world who for the most part are ineffective in dealing with issues in their own coutries ......nevermind something on a global matter.
I'm just going to relax and control what I can in dealing with todays probelms and not bust a blood vessel about things that WILL happen 1-2 hundred years down the road.
You hate science, and you hate ugly realities. So you prefer to bury your heads in the sand and listen to rightwing propaganda instead. Whether its non existent WMD or climate change, you people can be played like a fiddle. It keeps repeating itself year after year, its not hard to see a pattern here.
Baaaaa..........Baaaaaa............
I don't hate REAL science. It's got nothing to do with right/left wing. It's about me not being an idiot and being able to see that in the millions of years the Earth has existed, the climate has changed. Constantly. It wasn't a crisis until someone saw an opportunity to get you sheep in line and make a few bucks.
Epic fail is ignoring mans contribution to climate change and pretending we cannot influence it.
Mega fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
You hate science, and you hate ugly realities. So you prefer to bury your heads in the sand and listen to rightwing propaganda instead. Whether its non existent WMD or climate change, you people can be played like a fiddle. It keeps repeating itself year after year, its not hard to see a pattern here.
Baaaaa..........Baaaaaa............
You are just too funny,,, and terribly wrong. Nice though to insult others, just cause they don't agree with your thoughts, instead of using facts and truth...
Anyhow, if a person can honestly look at the data, the history, the facts, etc. regarding this topic, it may be difficult, but at the end of the day should be able to wade through the rubbish, politics, and smoke screens, and see that there is very little truth to the ability of CO2 to be THE main contributor to global warming [or climate change]. There are so many other variables, many that we do not even understand yet [solar, ice, clouds, water vapour, space effects, etc.], that are much more powerful, and are actually modifying the Earth's climate - as it has been modified since day #1.
Now, with that all said, YES we should decrease the amount of pollutants that we humans are spewing into the air, water, and soil - but not by singling out CO2 as a primary constituent, and falsely attributing it to this BS global warming farce.
I have a question: What is your real motivation for denying climate change?
I am not in that category, but I'll add a few comments anyway.
Almost nothing about the climate change hysteria, either pro or con, has to do with science, but celebrity.
In addition, there is a rather outlandish attempt to politicize climate change both domestically and internationally. Unsurprisingly, it is anti-American and wholly apologetic.
Third, unless one is completely daft, it is pretty obvious that emerging markets, namely the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have been attempting to extort money from the US, Japan, and Western Europe to help "offset" the costs of pollution control.
Four, the science that one does see runs into great difficulty in terms of (a) assigning the weight attributable to mankind versus natural processes, (b) assigning weights across countries wrt source of pollution (note: this is wholly separate from "global footprints," a largely guilt-ridden metric), and perhaps most importantly (c) the appropriate set of policy prescriptions domestically and internationally, to address the relationship between man and nature in the 21st century.
Five, the vast majority of the characters involved in the climate change "movement" are exceptionally ignorant, arrogant, weak, and hypocritical, and behave in such a way that suggests that the position opposite of theirs is the correct one.
My approach to the debate on climate is based on one or more of the five perspectives above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Is it an economic reason that you deny this is happening largely as a consequence of man made global pollutants, or is it a political reason, as the right has used Al Gore as their lightning rod to politicize a scientific argument, not a political one. If neither of those, how do you consistently deny that rising temperatures are not showing copious examples of potentially irreversible change?
Let's get to the heart of the matter. One, rising temperatures is a red herring for the true angst before us, the wholesale destruction of the natural world in the parts of the world beyond our control. We watched as the 3 Gorges Dam was built, not only displacing three million (!) Chinese against their will, but forever changing the landscape. We ware watching Brazil, among the most sanctimoniously hypocritical of countries, destroy the "lungs" of the world, the Amazon, in pursuit of cash crops, exotic timber, gold, and most laughably, the planting of corn as a fossil fuel alternative, all the while exterminating before our eyes, dozens of rain forest indigenous cultures. We cannot control this because, to be 100% frank, our path towards economic prosperity was itself paved with similar destruction of nature. Drift net fishing by Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, rapes the oceans of fish without care to other sea creatures.
Two, there is bitter hared toward the US for "escaping" from WW2 with a political and military hegemony, so little damage and loss of life (<400K killed) relative to the major powers at the time, and for daring to try and rebuild the world according to models of democracy and freedom. France continued with atmospheric nuclear tests until 1974 and with undersea nuclear testing in French Polynesia until 1996. Yet, the nuclear-***-environmental movement has been targeted against the US, which ended both by 1962. Yes, for 34 years, the nuclear testing in the South Pacific has been French...The US remains the engine of growth in the world, despite desperate efforts to "decouple" from the US. The global financial crisis, seen by the naive as American in origin seems to forget that real estate bubbles in the UK, Spain, and Iceland, to name a few, were far more devastating and frothy.When the I look at the real estate landscape in the US, all I see are reasonable prices, unlike Asia, which has become ridiculous and unsustainable. Anti-Americanism is as strong as ever, despite the growing importance of US based multinationals and tech companies. Relevance? The climate change movement focuses on global footprints, which pushes the burden to those with the greatest economic contributions and away from the firms and countries actually destroying their environments.
Three, the economic arguments of the climate change movement are asinine and counterproductive. Let's see...let's take $100 billion (raised by taxing the productive) and hand it over to emerging markets which will "magically" use it to unambiguously and transparently apply to reduce their destruction of globally-enjoyed natural resources. This is a policy solution I would expect from a first-draft eight-year old's essay on the environment, not responsible global leaders. The ignorance astounds. Go read stories of the UK in the 18th century, at pictures of the US in the 19th century, at pictures of japan during the 1950s. All share the same bond: pollution and filth. Yet both guided by economics eventually reached a point where the destruction of nature became expensive and alternative lifestyles became more valuable. DO you want to save the world's natural habitat? Spread economic growth, end government corruption, end warfare, and for God's sake, end this imbecilic naivete on how the world works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
I would estimate between 40 to 60% of deniers have no clue as to why they think man is not causing this but instead do so for a combination of reasons, mainly the radical rightwing attempts to deny this is happening (George W. Bush, Sen. Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, FOX, etc., etc..) being the primary reason(s).
I have not a clue on what these people have said, for I have never heard a word of theirs on the environment.
What I can imagine, however, is that no matter how crass their statements might have been, they are probably less dangerous than what I have heard from screeds coming from Copenhagen (the conference) and elsewhere.
The left itself is among the more backwards of groups, for I would rather work with people who are humbly ignorant but open to learn than to work with people self-righteous with facts and figures for which their knowledge was derived from propaganda and marketing campaigns.
So what is the solution to a better fit between man and nature? One, let's cool down the talk of hysteria. A far greater threat to sustainable life is poverty, war, and natural processes. Even worse, perhaps are desperate and corrupt states. I suffer from no guilt from my choice between paper and plastic, decisions over watering the lawn, and my choice over which car to drive. I use what I need and do not waste. The world is not going to implode or melt or whither away. Period.
Two, enough with the hypocrisy. Gore...LOL! Is a microcosm of hypocrisy. People wish to better their existence and hopefully offer a better life than their own for their kids. I would tell every single poor and lower middle class person to live responsibility but spend not one nanosecond listening to the climate discussions. Anyone with half a brain knows that the single best solution to living in harmony with nature is to live simply and conservatively. Those blaring end endlessly about saving the environment drive $50-$80K cars, live in 4000 Sf homes, live at the highest end of consumer culture. Let them conserve and reduce their conspicuous consumption. Let their wealth and knowledge be used to employ the poor so that person need not cut down trees for fuel. And the worst? The rich of emerging markets. 100% pure unadulterated hypocrisy.
Three, argue through strength not the kind of pandering apologism I see from this administration. G-ddamn it, we are the US! Let's start acting like it. If we really want to punish those who pollute, then label their products as coming from XX region of Y country. If, armed with that knowledge, we continue to find those products on the shelves of Gore, Schumer and other arrogant pricks, then let's end this discussion once and for all. Same goes for the war on drugs. If we are consuming them like crazy, then gone is the moral high road. If no the other hand, the problem lies abroad, then the countries on the firing line should be the polluting countries, all of whom are in this position due to fairly horrible governments in their recent past.
Solve the economics and politics and maybe then the science can be discussed more rationally. Until then, let the rich individuals of the world take the lead and get them their to enable the economic plight of the less fortunate (by way of creating livelihoods) or to shut the F up on the climate, for the must but their survival as #1.
S.
P.S. In no way shape or form do I advocate irresponsible environmental intergenerational behavior. Companies polluting the environment should pay the cost of that pollution NOW and companies should not dump (like hospitals do). The issue here is common sense versus hysteria, naivete, and arrogant ignorance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
